FREE TAPATALK APP

BJQ87 · 5th March 2006, 10:01 PM

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

AnotherSillyAlias · 5th March 2006, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by BJQ87

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

Hardly surprising that he seems human like, if he existed, (and I believe a charismatic person of some sort probably did), he was human so why wouldn't they write about him as if he was human?

Obviously they also through in a bunch of exaggerated and/or fanciful stuff to make their story so much better.

T'ai Chi · 5th March 2006, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by BJQ87

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

I think the human-ness of god(s) can be a hinderance and a help.

Hinderance:
Anthropomcentric(sp) hints at it all being made up for whatever reason

Help:
How else would god(s) present himself to us in a way that makes sense?

cyborg · 6th March 2006, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by BJQ87

Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

Humans with the ability to portray humanity whether or not a person actually existed? Nah. That would be silly.

stamenflicker · 6th March 2006, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Help:
How else would god(s) present himself to us in a way that makes sense?

Sacrificially. And I agree its more of a helpt than a hinderance.

T'ai Chi · 6th March 2006, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by stamenflicker

Sacrificially. And I agree its more of a helpt than a hinderance.

I like the parallels with Flatland where the Sphere has to present himself a circle at a time.

Bikewer · 6th March 2006, 08:09 AM

In "Lost Christianities", the author points out that there was no consensus of belief as to the Divine nature of Jesus till orthodoxy reared it's head about 400 years later.
Various early Christian sects saw Jesus as totally divine, totally human, a disembodied spirit possessing the body of Jesus, and other ideas as well.

That's a fascinating book, and I never hesitate to reccomend it:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...Fencoding=UTF8

ruach1 · 6th March 2006, 08:36 AM

[quote]

Originally Posted by BJQ87

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?[/QUOTE]

You have just raised a Christological question. To me, Christology is like a turbine that can be turned endlessly to generate energy. However, that turbine does not end anywhere--it just keeps going--generating energy.

Here are a couple sites that, I think, may offer assistance to your questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

ChristineR · 6th March 2006, 08:49 AM

The very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God. There was a lot of stuff about divine spirit entering the body, but no identification of Jesus with Yahweh. That line of thinking really began with Paul, who never actually saw Jesus, but communicated with him through "appearances" (hallucinations). The Pauline branch eventually squelched the dissentors. U.S. fundamentalists mostly go to the furthest extremes and really never consider the implications of the whole thing.

Tricky · 6th March 2006, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by BJQ87

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

What I think it points out is that the Biblical version of Jesus is most probably an amalgamation of several actual people with some legends thrown in. It almost seems that they threw together whatever anecdotes they had hanging around and attributed them to Jesus. And of course, most writers know that you need to give your protagonist a human side in order to make them more likable.

Unfortunately for Christianity, while it makes Jesus seem more like a regular guy, it makes the divinity of Jesus much harder to accept. He was supposed to be perfect, yet sometimes he could do miracles and sometimes he couldn't. Sometimes he did nice things like feed the masses and raise the dead, othertimes he withered inoffensive fig trees.

On the whole, it tends to support the idea that Jesus, or at least many aspects of him, were fictional.

pgwenthold · 6th March 2006, 09:14 AM

In order to consider the first question, you have to think, what would the response be if Jesus were NOT shown as having this "humanity"? Would the preacher go up and say, "The writers are clearly exaggerating because no one is this good" or would he say, "See, the bible describes Jesus as perfect, just as you'd expect from God"?

This is a case of the preacher starting with a conclusion and then using the text to create the argument. Had the text been a different way, he would have used a different argument to reach the same conclusion

pgwenthold · 6th March 2006, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by BJQ87

This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?

Another thing to add:

If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human.

ChristineR · 6th March 2006, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Another thing to add:

If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human.

The key to understanding this is to realize that Yahweh was originally one of the Babylonian pantheon--a superpowered human among other humans, superpowered and not. For some reason Yahweh got it into his head to have a chosen people who were only allowed to worship him, and did it make all the difference. Monothesim is a huge improvement over polythesim from a moralistic point of view.

BJQ87 · 6th March 2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Sometimes he did nice things like feed the masses and raise the dead, othertimes he withered inoffensive fig trees.

the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel.

Quote:

If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human.

This being because, as this same bible says, man was created in God's own image.

(yay for my 400th post)

Ossai · 6th March 2006, 09:37 AM

BJQ87

Quote:

the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel.

The texts also indicate that figs were out of season, Jesus knew they were out of season and so cursed the tree for following it’s nature.

How did you come up with the fig tree being a metaphor for Israel anyway? It sounds like more apologetics (i.e. we’ll add a story/bit outside the bible to kinda explain a story in the bible.)

Ossai

pgwenthold · 6th March 2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by ChristineR

The key to understanding this is to realize that Yahweh was originally one of the Babylonian pantheon--a superpowered human among other humans, superpowered and not. For some reason Yahweh got it into his head to have a chosen people who were only allowed to worship him, and did it make all the difference. Monothesim is a huge improvement over polythesim from a moralistic point of view.

I have no trouble understanding it, because its very common in mythology to give the gods human properties.

But that is sort of the point. Why should we be surprised if Jesus is given human properties by the bible writers? Shoot, the big G himself was given human properties by the bible writers, and he wasn't supposed to be human.

The problem was that human thinking was all they knew (not a surprise), so gods are described like people. They don't have to be god-made-flesh to have that property.

ceo_esq · 6th March 2006, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by ChristineR

The very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God. There was a lot of stuff about divine spirit entering the body, but no identification of Jesus with Yahweh. That line of thinking really began with Paul, who never actually saw Jesus, but communicated with him through "appearances" (hallucinations).

Since the very oldest Christian texts we know of are from Paul or (possibly) the Q gospel - and those attest to the belief that Jesus was God in some form or another - what is your basis for saying that "the very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God"?

Tricky · 6th March 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by BJQ87

the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel.

I have to echo Ossai here. What indicates that it is a metaphor for Israel? It could be a metaphor for killing unproductive members of society.

I have seen this passage referred to as "the parable of the fig tree", yet it is not told as a parable at all, but as an actual historical Jesus moment. If this is a parable, then the whole story of Christ could be one, thereby requiring no authenticity at all. Only the "moral" would be important.

ceo_esq · 6th March 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Unfortunately for Christianity, while it makes Jesus seem more like a regular guy, it makes the divinity of Jesus much harder to accept.

On balance, so far as I can perceive, this does not historically appear to have been the case.

pgwenthold · 6th March 2006, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

On balance, so far as I can perceive, this does not historically appear to have been the case.

Baseless.

How does the acceptance of Jesus's divinity compare to what it would have been if he did not look "like a regular guy." Since we've never run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy, you have no grounds for claiming that history shows anything regarding the comparison of the two.

How do you know that a much larger fraction of the world's population would not be christian were the bible not so ho-hum on Jesus? It's not like christianity is even a majority in the world today, so there is plenty of room for improvement.

ceo_esq · 6th March 2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

How does the acceptance of Jesus's divinity compare to what it would have been if he did not look "like a regular guy." Since we've never run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy, you have no grounds for claiming that history shows anything regarding the comparison of the two.

I did not advance a claim about what history shows (such as demonstrating the opposite of Tricky's contention). I advanced a claim about its apparent failure to reveal something (namely, support for Tricky's contention), for reasons including the ones that you have now helpfully pointed out, presumably in case anyone was under the impression that we had "run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy".

Belz... · 6th March 2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

On the whole, it tends to support the idea that Jesus, or at least many aspects of him, were fictional.

Or at the very least, insane.

Tricky · 6th March 2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

I did not advance a claim about what history shows (such as demonstrating the opposite of Tricky's contention). I advanced a claim about its apparent failure to reveal something (namely, support for Tricky's contention), for reasons including the ones that you have now helpfully pointed out, presumably in case anyone was under the impression that we had "run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy".

This is getting too convoluted. My point was that a perfect person (as Jesus is sometimes described) with a direct link to God is unlikely to behave just like Joe Schmoe. Unless we simply have missed that chapter of the bible where Jesus is out in the well house with the apostles getting schnockered. ("Hey Jeshus! Howboucha turn shome more o' that water inta wine. hic ")

BJQ87 · 6th March 2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

What indicates that it is a metaphor for Israel? It could be a metaphor for killing unproductive members of society.

It could be taken as both. Since Israel is unproductive. In a spiritual sense that is.

And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Luke 21:29-32

What stands out to me here is that he says "and all the trees". Leads me to believe that the fig tree is Israel, and "all the trees" is every other nation. As the bible also says that the gospel will be preached to every nation. Israel being the fig tree fits into Jesus' prophecy.

ImaginalDisc · 6th March 2006, 02:02 PM

Well, as I pointed out to the Jevoah's Witnesses who came to my door on saturday, J was also a racist pig.

Matt 15:21-28:

21:Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

CFLarsen · 6th March 2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

OFFICIAL:
Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!
Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear,
even if they do say 'Jehovah'.
CROWD:
Ooooooh!...
[CROWD stones OFFICIAL]
WOMAN #1:
Good shot!
[clap clap clap]

Blasphemer!

Iacchus · 6th March 2006, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Obviously there's more to this than meets they eye. Do you think Jesus may have been letting His guard down just a little, to let us know what His true purpose is? Then of course how do you explain the fact that His church was established with the gentiles, rather than with Israel herself? Perhaps this is why the heathen are also accepted into heaven, without ever having heard of Jesus?

ChristineR · 6th March 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

Since the very oldest Christian texts we know of are from Paul or (possibly) the Q gospel - and those attest to the belief that Jesus was God in some form or another - what is your basis for saying that "the very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God"?

The Book of Acts, plus later historical records of the controversy. There were two early branches of Christianity, Paul's and Peter's. The Gospel of Mark appears to belong to the messianic/Jewish/Peter tradition rather than the descended divinity/revelation/Greek mysticism/Paul tradition.

Some people believe Sayings Thomas predates Paul. Of course they can't agree on the particulars like who wrote it down, who made the extant copy, what sort of editing has been done....

ImaginalDisc · 6th March 2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Obviously there's more to this than meets they eye. Do you think Jesus may have been letting His guard down just a little, to let us know what His true purpose is? Then of course how do you explain the fact that His church was established with the gentiles, rather than with Israel herself? Perhaps this is why the heathen are also accepted into heaven, without ever having heard of Jesus?

He agreed with her that she's a dog. Also, he made her wait, while her daughter lay dying. When there is a medical emergency, there is no time to mess around.

ceo_esq · 6th March 2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by ChristineR

The Book of Acts, plus later historical records of the controversy. There were two early branches of Christianity, Paul's and Peter's. The Gospel of Mark appears to belong to the messianic/Jewish/Peter tradition rather than the descended divinity/revelation/Greek mysticism/Paul tradition.

I'm trying to locate specific support in all this for your suggestion that the first Christians did not believe in Jesus' divinity, but I'm having trouble.

Tricky · 6th March 2006, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by BJQ87

It could be taken as both. Since Israel is unproductive. In a spiritual sense that is.

And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Luke 21:29-32

What stands out to me here is that he says "and all the trees". Leads me to believe that the fig tree is Israel, and "all the trees" is every other nation. As the bible also says that the gospel will be preached to every nation. Israel being the fig tree fits into Jesus' prophecy.

Okay, I stand corrected. There is a parable of the fig tree. But that passage has nothing to do with the withering of the fig tree which is in Matthew 21:18-21. Israel is not mentioned at all.

ChristineR · 6th March 2006, 03:03 PM

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Let's face it, there are people who think that the whole story was made up by Mark and later attached to Paul. But if you accept that the early New Testament writings were basically historical (there was a carpenter from Nazarus who stirred up trouble with the Jews and was executed by the Romans and Mark wrote down what he heard about him) then you get a picture of a charismatic leader who was gradually given more and more supernatural powers until Paul turned him into a divinity.

stamenflicker · 6th March 2006, 03:09 PM

I think its pretty funny that you guys would even bother taking up for the innocent and defenseless fig tree. It was a tree. And in the context of the story, it was a teaching tool. Jesus also captured poor defenseless fish in more than one teaching moment.

Did I log into the EPA whacko message board by mistake today or what?

Flick

stamenflicker · 6th March 2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

He agreed with her that she's a dog. Also, he made her wait, while her daughter lay dying. When there is a medical emergency, there is no time to mess around.

Medical emergency? From who's perspective?

Also, "Do not give what it is holy to the dogs" is a very profound spiritual concept. Sort of like another, "Do not cast your pearls before swine."

Flick

T'ai Chi · 6th March 2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by stamenflicker

I think its pretty funny that you guys would even bother taking up for the innocent and defenseless fig tree. It was a tree. And in the context of the story, it was a teaching tool.

It really figures.

ceo_esq · 6th March 2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by ChristineR

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Let's face it, there are people who think that the whole story was made up by Mark and later attached to Paul. But if you accept that the early New Testament writings were basically historical (there was a carpenter from Nazarus who stirred up trouble with the Jews and was executed by the Romans and Mark wrote down what he heard about him) then you get a picture of a charismatic leader who was gradually given more and more supernatural powers until Paul turned him into a divinity.

I read Mark as consistent with belief in a divine Christ, though. And if there is anything at all to the notion of a Q that predates Paul, then I think it's probable that it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus before he did.

CriticalThanking · 6th March 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Obviously there's more to this than meets they eye.

Indeed there is. The way I read it, Jesus was willing to let a kid suffer until he got a "good enough" answer from the parent instead of judging the kid for his/her beliefs (or acts, depending upon whether you think salvation is through one, the other, or some combination).

What was he waiting for - a demonstration of quick wit? Of faith? Of submission? "Bow down before me or I let your kids suffer."

CT

ChristineR · 6th March 2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

I read Mark as consistent with belief in a divine Christ, though. And if there is anything at all to the notion of a Q that predates Paul, then I think it's probable that it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus before he did.

I really don't read Mark as consistent with a divine Christ for the simple reason that Mark was Jewish. Some people find "coded messages" to that effect in Mark, but I'm not convinced.

In Matthew we find three things: stuff from Mark, stuff unique to Matthew, and stuff in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Save thing with Luke. So if you take the common stuff from Luke and Matthew not in Mark, what you get is essentially a bunch of sayings without much narrative. I don't find one bit of Paul's divine sacrifice, but to each his own opinion.

Reconstruction of Q

CapelDodger · 6th March 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ChristineR

There were two early branches of Christianity, Paul's and Peter's.

Shouldn't that be Paul's and James's? We have an Epistle of James which is not at all Pauline, but was apparently well enough known that it couldn't be excluded from the Pauline canon.

CapelDodger · 6th March 2006, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

On balance, so far as I can perceive, this does not historically appear to have been the case.

I read Tricky's point as being that the divinity of someone demonstrably human is harder to accept than the divinity of a being demonstrably super-human. That seems to me to be a truism. There have been, in history, many demonstrably human people who have either declared themselves divine or had divinity thrust upon them by others. They've mostly had transitory success, if any.

Demonstrably super-human beings whose divinity has been rejected : nil. On balance, history favours divine beings who make a big noise about their USP (Unique Selling Point). It works every time.

5th March 2006, 10:01 PM	#1
BJQ87 Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: fresYES Posts: 473	Humanity of Jesus This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?
	Last edited by BJQ87; 5th March 2006 at 10:10 PM.

5th March 2006, 10:14 PM	#2
AnotherSillyAlias Vortex of Despair Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sheep country, Eastern Oz Posts: 1,585	Originally Posted by BJQ87 This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive? Hardly surprising that he seems human like, if he existed, (and I believe a charismatic person of some sort probably did), he was human so why wouldn't they write about him as if he was human? Obviously they also through in a bunch of exaggerated and/or fanciful stuff to make their story so much better.
	__________________ "It's not that sicence doesn't agree so I ignore it, it's that I know what science knows, but also what is beyond science, so therefore, I also know when it is wrong" - Kilik -

5th March 2006, 10:54 PM	#3
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by BJQ87 This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive? I think the human-ness of god(s) can be a hinderance and a help. Hinderance: Anthropomcentric(sp) hints at it all being made up for whatever reason Help: How else would god(s) present himself to us in a way that makes sense?
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

6th March 2006, 03:25 AM	#4
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	Originally Posted by BJQ87 Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive? Humans with the ability to portray humanity whether or not a person actually existed? Nah. That would be silly.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974

6th March 2006, 05:51 AM	#5
stamenflicker Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Tennessee Posts: 869	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Help: How else would god(s) present himself to us in a way that makes sense? Sacrificially. And I agree its more of a helpt than a hinderance.
	__________________ http://narcissus-shrugged.blogspot.com/

6th March 2006, 08:00 AM	#6
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by stamenflicker Sacrificially. And I agree its more of a helpt than a hinderance. I like the parallels with Flatland where the Sphere has to present himself a circle at a time.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

6th March 2006, 08:09 AM	#7
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,617	In "Lost Christianities", the author points out that there was no consensus of belief as to the Divine nature of Jesus till orthodoxy reared it's head about 400 years later. Various early Christian sects saw Jesus as totally divine, totally human, a disembodied spirit possessing the body of Jesus, and other ideas as well. That's a fascinating book, and I never hesitate to reccomend it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...Fencoding=UTF8

6th March 2006, 08:36 AM	#8
ruach1 Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 561	[quote] Originally Posted by BJQ87 This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive?[/QUOTE] You have just raised a Christological question. To me, Christology is like a turbine that can be turned endlessly to generate energy. However, that turbine does not end anywhere--it just keeps going--generating energy. Here are a couple sites that, I think, may offer assistance to your questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
	__________________ "I am an empiricist and as such I can demonstrate empirically the existence of a totality supraordinate to consciousness." C.G. Jung, Collected Works, X, p.463

6th March 2006, 08:49 AM	#9
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	The very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God. There was a lot of stuff about divine spirit entering the body, but no identification of Jesus with Yahweh. That line of thinking really began with Paul, who never actually saw Jesus, but communicated with him through "appearances" (hallucinations). The Pauline branch eventually squelched the dissentors. U.S. fundamentalists mostly go to the furthest extremes and really never consider the implications of the whole thing.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

6th March 2006, 08:55 AM	#10
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,406	Originally Posted by BJQ87 This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive? What I think it points out is that the Biblical version of Jesus is most probably an amalgamation of several actual people with some legends thrown in. It almost seems that they threw together whatever anecdotes they had hanging around and attributed them to Jesus. And of course, most writers know that you need to give your protagonist a human side in order to make them more likable. Unfortunately for Christianity, while it makes Jesus seem more like a regular guy, it makes the divinity of Jesus much harder to accept. He was supposed to be perfect, yet sometimes he could do miracles and sometimes he couldn't. Sometimes he did nice things like feed the masses and raise the dead, othertimes he withered inoffensive fig trees. On the whole, it tends to support the idea that Jesus, or at least many aspects of him, were fictional.

6th March 2006, 09:14 AM	#11
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	In order to consider the first question, you have to think, what would the response be if Jesus were NOT shown as having this "humanity"? Would the preacher go up and say, "The writers are clearly exaggerating because no one is this good" or would he say, "See, the bible describes Jesus as perfect, just as you'd expect from God"? This is a case of the preacher starting with a conclusion and then using the text to create the argument. Had the text been a different way, he would have used a different argument to reach the same conclusion
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

6th March 2006, 09:19 AM	#12
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by BJQ87 This sunday during church the pastor pointed out something I hadn't really thought much about before- and what I drew from it was that the way Jesus functioned as a human being during certain situations gives more credibility toward the idea of His actual existence. Jesus is often portrayed as being frustrated towards the unfaithful, and compassionate to the weak. He is also portrayed as angry, tired, hungry, saddened, etc. If you pick up your bible and turn toward the gospels, you will see for yourself that Jesus is quite human-like, aside from the miracles and such. Were the writers of the gospels just very good at portraying the humanity of Christ? Or very deceptive? Another thing to add: If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

6th March 2006, 09:27 AM	#13
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Another thing to add: If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human. The key to understanding this is to realize that Yahweh was originally one of the Babylonian pantheon--a superpowered human among other humans, superpowered and not. For some reason Yahweh got it into his head to have a chosen people who were only allowed to worship him, and did it make all the difference. Monothesim is a huge improvement over polythesim from a moralistic point of view.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

6th March 2006, 09:30 AM	#14
BJQ87 Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: fresYES Posts: 473	Quote: Sometimes he did nice things like feed the masses and raise the dead, othertimes he withered inoffensive fig trees. the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel. Quote: If you look at the old testament, you can say the same thing about the big G-O-D. For being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, he seems to suffer from some really petty human emotions. Jealousy being the big one, but on the whole, God acts an awful lot like a human. This being because, as this same bible says, man was created in God's own image. (yay for my 400th post)

6th March 2006, 09:37 AM	#15
Ossai Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,459	BJQ87 Quote: the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel. The texts also indicate that figs were out of season, Jesus knew they were out of season and so cursed the tree for following it’s nature. How did you come up with the fig tree being a metaphor for Israel anyway? It sounds like more apologetics (i.e. we’ll add a story/bit outside the bible to kinda explain a story in the bible.) Ossai
Ossai Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,459	__________________ The other moral to be drawn from the story [of Job] is that if you lead a good virtuous life, God will urge Satan to kill your family for a bet. Perhaps you should try to sin a little now and then, just to keep your children safe. - Dr Adequate www.stopsylvia.com

6th March 2006, 10:13 AM	#16
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by ChristineR The key to understanding this is to realize that Yahweh was originally one of the Babylonian pantheon--a superpowered human among other humans, superpowered and not. For some reason Yahweh got it into his head to have a chosen people who were only allowed to worship him, and did it make all the difference. Monothesim is a huge improvement over polythesim from a moralistic point of view. I have no trouble understanding it, because its very common in mythology to give the gods human properties. But that is sort of the point. Why should we be surprised if Jesus is given human properties by the bible writers? Shoot, the big G himself was given human properties by the bible writers, and he wasn't supposed to be human. The problem was that human thinking was all they knew (not a surprise), so gods are described like people. They don't have to be god-made-flesh to have that property.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

6th March 2006, 10:42 AM	#17
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by ChristineR The very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God. There was a lot of stuff about divine spirit entering the body, but no identification of Jesus with Yahweh. That line of thinking really began with Paul, who never actually saw Jesus, but communicated with him through "appearances" (hallucinations). Since the very oldest Christian texts we know of are from Paul or (possibly) the Q gospel - and those attest to the belief that Jesus was God in some form or another - what is your basis for saying that "the very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God"?
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

6th March 2006, 10:44 AM	#18
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,406	Originally Posted by BJQ87 the whole point of the fig tree passage is that Jesus was hungry, he went to go eat of the tree, and there was no fruit, so he made it wither. The fig tree is a metaphor for Israel. I have to echo Ossai here. What indicates that it is a metaphor for Israel? It could be a metaphor for killing unproductive members of society. I have seen this passage referred to as "the parable of the fig tree", yet it is not told as a parable at all, but as an actual historical Jesus moment. If this is a parable, then the whole story of Christ could be one, thereby requiring no authenticity at all. Only the "moral" would be important.

6th March 2006, 10:45 AM	#19
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by Tricky Unfortunately for Christianity, while it makes Jesus seem more like a regular guy, it makes the divinity of Jesus much harder to accept. On balance, so far as I can perceive, this does not historically appear to have been the case.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

6th March 2006, 11:17 AM	#20
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by ceo_esq On balance, so far as I can perceive, this does not historically appear to have been the case. Baseless. How does the acceptance of Jesus's divinity compare to what it would have been if he did not look "like a regular guy." Since we've never run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy, you have no grounds for claiming that history shows anything regarding the comparison of the two. How do you know that a much larger fraction of the world's population would not be christian were the bible not so ho-hum on Jesus? It's not like christianity is even a majority in the world today, so there is plenty of room for improvement.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

6th March 2006, 11:44 AM	#21
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by pgwenthold How does the acceptance of Jesus's divinity compare to what it would have been if he did not look "like a regular guy." Since we've never run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy, you have no grounds for claiming that history shows anything regarding the comparison of the two. I did not advance a claim about what history shows (such as demonstrating the opposite of Tricky's contention). I advanced a claim about its apparent failure to reveal something (namely, support for Tricky's contention), for reasons including the ones that you have now helpfully pointed out, presumably in case anyone was under the impression that we had "run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy".
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

6th March 2006, 12:07 PM	#22
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,984	Originally Posted by Tricky On the whole, it tends to support the idea that Jesus, or at least many aspects of him, were fictional. Or at the very least, insane.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey

6th March 2006, 12:53 PM	#23
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,406	Originally Posted by ceo_esq I did not advance a claim about what history shows (such as demonstrating the opposite of Tricky's contention). I advanced a claim about its apparent failure to reveal something (namely, support for Tricky's contention), for reasons including the ones that you have now helpfully pointed out, presumably in case anyone was under the impression that we had "run the experiment where Jesus did not look like such a regular guy". This is getting too convoluted. My point was that a perfect person (as Jesus is sometimes described) with a direct link to God is unlikely to behave just like Joe Schmoe. Unless we simply have missed that chapter of the bible where Jesus is out in the well house with the apostles getting schnockered. ("Hey Jeshus! Howboucha turn shome more o' that water inta wine. hic ")

6th March 2006, 01:04 PM	#24
BJQ87 Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: fresYES Posts: 473	Quote: What indicates that it is a metaphor for Israel? It could be a metaphor for killing unproductive members of society. It could be taken as both. Since Israel is unproductive. In a spiritual sense that is. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Luke 21:29-32 What stands out to me here is that he says "and all the trees". Leads me to believe that the fig tree is Israel, and "all the trees" is every other nation. As the bible also says that the gospel will be preached to every nation. Israel being the fig tree fits into Jesus' prophecy.

6th March 2006, 02:02 PM	#25
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Well, as I pointed out to the Jevoah's Witnesses who came to my door on saturday, J was also a racist pig. Matt 15:21-28: 21:Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

6th March 2006, 02:15 PM	#26
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Quote: OFFICIAL: Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'. CROWD: Ooooooh!... [CROWD stones OFFICIAL] WOMAN #1: Good shot! [clap clap clap] Blasphemer!
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

6th March 2006, 02:27 PM	#27
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. Obviously there's more to this than meets they eye. Do you think Jesus may have been letting His guard down just a little, to let us know what His true purpose is? Then of course how do you explain the fact that His church was established with the gentiles, rather than with Israel herself? Perhaps this is why the heathen are also accepted into heaven, without ever having heard of Jesus?

6th March 2006, 02:31 PM	#28
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	Originally Posted by ceo_esq Since the very oldest Christian texts we know of are from Paul or (possibly) the Q gospel - and those attest to the belief that Jesus was God in some form or another - what is your basis for saying that "the very first Christians did not believe Jesus was God"? The Book of Acts, plus later historical records of the controversy. There were two early branches of Christianity, Paul's and Peter's. The Gospel of Mark appears to belong to the messianic/Jewish/Peter tradition rather than the descended divinity/revelation/Greek mysticism/Paul tradition. Some people believe Sayings Thomas predates Paul. Of course they can't agree on the particulars like who wrote it down, who made the extant copy, what sort of editing has been done....
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

6th March 2006, 02:46 PM	#29
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by Iacchus Obviously there's more to this than meets they eye. Do you think Jesus may have been letting His guard down just a little, to let us know what His true purpose is? Then of course how do you explain the fact that His church was established with the gentiles, rather than with Israel herself? Perhaps this is why the heathen are also accepted into heaven, without ever having heard of Jesus? He agreed with her that she's a dog. Also, he made her wait, while her daughter lay dying. When there is a medical emergency, there is no time to mess around.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

6th March 2006, 02:47 PM	#30
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by ChristineR The Book of Acts, plus later historical records of the controversy. There were two early branches of Christianity, Paul's and Peter's. The Gospel of Mark appears to belong to the messianic/Jewish/Peter tradition rather than the descended divinity/revelation/Greek mysticism/Paul tradition. I'm trying to locate specific support in all this for your suggestion that the first Christians did not believe in Jesus' divinity, but I'm having trouble.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

6th March 2006, 02:54 PM	#31
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,406	Originally Posted by BJQ87 It could be taken as both. Since Israel is unproductive. In a spiritual sense that is. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Luke 21:29-32 What stands out to me here is that he says "and all the trees". Leads me to believe that the fig tree is Israel, and "all the trees" is every other nation. As the bible also says that the gospel will be preached to every nation. Israel being the fig tree fits into Jesus' prophecy. Okay, I stand corrected. There is a parable of the fig tree. But that passage has nothing to do with the withering of the fig tree which is in Matthew 21:18-21. Israel is not mentioned at all.

6th March 2006, 03:03 PM	#32
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html Let's face it, there are people who think that the whole story was made up by Mark and later attached to Paul. But if you accept that the early New Testament writings were basically historical (there was a carpenter from Nazarus who stirred up trouble with the Jews and was executed by the Romans and Mark wrote down what he heard about him) then you get a picture of a charismatic leader who was gradually given more and more supernatural powers until Paul turned him into a divinity.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,189	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

6th March 2006, 03:09 PM	#33
stamenflicker Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Tennessee Posts: 869	I think its pretty funny that you guys would even bother taking up for the innocent and defenseless fig tree. It was a tree. And in the context of the story, it was a teaching tool. Jesus also captured poor defenseless fish in more than one teaching moment. Did I log into the EPA whacko message board by mistake today or what? Flick
	__________________ http://narcissus-shrugged.blogspot.com/

6th March 2006, 03:12 PM	#34
stamenflicker Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Tennessee Posts: 869	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc He agreed with her that she's a dog. Also, he made her wait, while her daughter lay dying. When there is a medical emergency, there is no time to mess around. Medical emergency? From who's perspective? Also, "Do not give what it is holy to the dogs" is a very profound spiritual concept. Sort of like another, "Do not cast your pearls before swine." Flick
	__________________ http://narcissus-shrugged.blogspot.com/

6th March 2006, 03:13 PM	#36
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by ChristineR http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html Let's face it, there are people who think that the whole story was made up by Mark and later attached to Paul. But if you accept that the early New Testament writings were basically historical (there was a carpenter from Nazarus who stirred up trouble with the Jews and was executed by the Romans and Mark wrote down what he heard about him) then you get a picture of a charismatic leader who was gradually given more and more supernatural powers until Paul turned him into a divinity. I read Mark as consistent with belief in a divine Christ, though. And if there is anything at all to the notion of a Q that predates Paul, then I think it's probable that it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus before he did.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Last edited by ceo_esq; 6th March 2006 at 03:16 PM.